beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 65,670,808 as well as the full payment from January 5, 2017.
Reasons
1. From September 2015 to September 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact (hereinafter “instant Contact Contact Contact”), and KRW 65,670,808 out of the price for Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim on the main claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 5, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is obvious that it is the day following the delivery of a copy of the main claim in this case.
3. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. Since there is a defect in which the contact of this case supplied by the plaintiff's assertion was not proper, the defendant suffered a loss in the sales amount of KRW 71,395,487 due to this, so the plaintiff shall compensate the defendant for the above amount.
B. Each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including additional numbers) and each statement of witness C and D alone are insufficient to acknowledge the existence of defects in the contact arrangement of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s sales loss is the same as the amount of the counterclaim claim. In full view of the above evidence and the overall purport of the pleading, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s counterclaim claim.
① The question of the defect in the contact of this case seems to be possible to make an accurate determination with regard to the defect in the contact of this case itself supplied by the Plaintiff. ② Since E company processes two-lanes of products sent by the Defendant using the contact of this case, the testimony by the witness C, who is an employee of the above company, is insufficient to recognize the defect in the contact of this case. The witness D is a person who was an employee of the Defendant.